Review of operation and rules of forum - your opinions wanted!

GuanYin

Des wrote: »

You see, here's the thing.

Without a Manchester United-minded moderator, you are going to get accusations of biased moderating.

With respect, that's something you guys will need to get over. We select the best posters for the job at the time. We're not going to fasttrack someone further down the list just because they're a United fan.

We toyed with the idea of having soccer forum moderation accounts (SoccerMod1, SoccerMod2) before just to prove that you guys couldn't tell which mod was which in terms of bias.

In fact, I don't actually remember any major complaint aimed at a moderator based on team rivalry or bias based on team support. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up as an issue.

When the best poster for the job is a United fan (as PHB was in the past), then there will be a United fan mod. Not before and certainly not because they are a United fan.

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

a) Seen by a mod and interpreted as trolling
b) Reported, and the mod agrees that it is reported
c) If a comment is reported a certain amount of times for trolling (5, for example) the user is infracted even if the mod does not see it as trolling, as long as it could be interpreted that way

I'd be slow to accept reported posts as any kinda criteria for sanction. For one thing, reported posts should be anonymous and another the reported post system is open to abuse..users already use it to try and get someone banned (ie. mildly troll and then report the response).

GuanYin

Des wrote: »

See what I mean about misinterpretation of tone.

That comment was clearly a joke.

I know you were joking, my reply wasn't for your benefit

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

In fact, I don't actually remember any major complaint aimed at a moderator based on team rivalry or bias based on team support. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up as an issue.

Really?

GuanYin

Des wrote: »

Really?

Not one where a mod sanctioned a post and the poster sanctioned complained it was because they were a rival fan.

I know what you're referring to and yes, I can think of one user who might make that complaint, but that user's complaint kinda pales to their behavior then and since. Anyway, this thread isn't here to discuss specific cases and since the new rules have come in, there have really been no such complaints with any basis.

Handsome Bob

Des wrote: »

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that if someone can't deal with a bit of slagging from rival fans after their team loses, then they have no place being a football fan.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Personally I think this is just as big an issue as trolling. There are so many sensitive people posting in here and as soon as something negative mentioned about their club they go firing accusations of trolling about the place.

Des wrote: »

If someone can't take that level of slagging, then they probably shouldn't have access to football, via any medium.

Two examples if I may;

1. I'm a Liverpool supporter, and say they lose, I have no issue with a Man U fan coming in and saying "Liverpool didn't play well today and here are the reasons why I think so." I have no absolutely no issue with that whatsoever.

2. Say Liverpool lose and some clown comes in and starts spouting BS like "lulz Liverpool were ****e today, they won't finish in the Top 4 never mind having any chance of winning the league. Liverpool fans are deluded lulz lulz lulz." Case in point, the Spurs/Liverpool match thread, where we lost for the first time in the PL. The context may I repeat was us losing for the first time in the PL, and may I repeat the troll argument; "lulz Liverpool have no chance of winning the league." It makes no sense whatsoever so I will react negatively to that kind of crap. Call me over-sensitive if you want for that, I couldn't give a rats ass.

The second example has absolutely nothing to do with being over-sensitive and has everything to do with trolls trying to incite rather than engage in a critique of a rival's performance. As I said in the first example, I couldn't give a rats ass about someone being critical of my team if the purpose is to have a reasonable discussion rather than trying to get a rise out of someone.

GuanYin wrote: »

I think it depends who is doing it though.

I wonder is the old system of "intent" a better apporach. If the mod deems that someone is intending to insult/annoy/abuse/rile then they take action, rather than having a stricter set of rules.

The issue is, you guys need to trust us to make the call.

I want this, nay that's not right, I would beg for this.

_blank_

OK good examples.

But I have to ask.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I will react negatively to that kind of crap

Um, react negatively?

Well done, you've fed the troll.

Would it not be better to just ignore it, report the post and see what the mods do.

You can then always PM the moderators and ask their opinion on the situation.

Reacting to a troll is silly,

Draupnir

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Two examples if I may;

1. I'm a Liverpool supporter, and say they lose, I have no issue with a Man U fan coming in and saying "Liverpool didn't play well today and here are the reasons why I think so." I have no absolutely no issue with that whatsoever.

2. Say Liverpool lose and some clown comes in and starts spouting BS like "lulz Liverpool were ****e today, they won't finish in the Top 4 never mind having any chance of winning the league. Liverpool fans are deluded lulz lulz lulz." Case in point, the Spurs/Liverpool match thread, where we lost for the first time in the PL. The context may I repeat was us losing for the first time in the PL, and may I repeat the troll argument; "lulz Liverpool have no chance of winning the league." It makes no sense whatsoever so I will react negatively to that kind of crap. Call me over-sensitive if you want for that, I couldn't give a rats ass.

The second example has absolutely nothing to do with being over-sensitive and has everything to do with trolls trying to incite rather than engage in a critique of a rival's performance. As I said in the first example, I couldn't give a rats ass about someone being critical of my team if the purpose is to have a reasonable discussion rather than trying to get a rise out of someone.



I want this, nay that's not right, I would beg for this.

You really need to just ignore that kind of comment and if let the mod's deal with it if it becomes a consistent thing where the comments are piling up and a gang of muppets is at it.

On an individual basis, I just let that kind of thing become letters on the screen that don't appeal to me. This isn't real life so you shouldn't let tiny crap like the slagging you quoted bother you so much.

_blank_

...in fact, I'd go so far to say that anyone who reacts in a negative fashion to an obvious troll/WUM should be more severely sanctioned than the troll themselves.

Handsome Bob

Des wrote: »

OK good examples.

But I have to ask.



Um, react negatively?

Well done, you've fed the troll.

Would it not be better to just ignore it, report the post and see what the mods do.

You can then always PM the moderators and ask their opinion on the situation.

Reacting to a troll is silly,

Because we all know that there are many posters around here who have, quite frankly, perfected the art of ****-stirring to the point where they can be absolutely infuriating without actually breaking the rules of the charter.

Thus, why do I not PM mods? Because it is futile; as I said these guys aren't breaking the rules "officially" so your (the mod's) hands are tied. There's nothing the mods can do about it.

For the record, since that Spurs/Liverpool thread, I've rarely given trolls the satisfaction. But now the problem for me is that I couldn't be bothered posting at all in this forum. I get more engaging discussions on soccer from posters on American boards for **** sake.:p:pac:

GuanYin

Des wrote: »

...in fact, I'd go so far to say that anyone who reacts in a negative fashion to an obvious troll/WUM should be more severely sanctioned than the troll themselves.

I think if you remove the trolls you might be able to de-sensitize posters.

While people are intentionally trolling, posters may rightly or wrongly not be able force themselves to see the difference between trolls and those with a strong opposing opinion.

_blank_

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because we all know that there are many posters around here who have, quite frankly, perfected the art of ****-stirring to the point where they can be absolutely infuriating without actually breaking the rules of the charter.

So, you know about the "Ignore This Poster" feature?

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Thus, why do I not PM mods? Because it is futile; as I said these guys aren't breaking the rules "officially" so your (the mod's) hands are tied. There's nothing the mods can do about it.

I'm not a Soccer Mod.

If you PM the Mods and you feel it is "futile", then go to HelpDesk.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

For the record, since that Spurs/Liverpool thread, I've rarely given trolls the satisfaction. But now the problem for me is that I couldn't be bothered posting at all in this forum. I get more engaging discussions on soccer from posters on American boards for **** sake.:p:pac:

What's wrong with Americans posting about Soccer?

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

I think if you remove the trolls you might be able to de-sensitize posters.

While people are intentionally trolling, posters may rightly or wrongly not be able force themselves to see the difference between trolls and those with a strong opposing opinion.

You are forgetting Column 3.

Crackpots who shout "Troll" whenever anyone says anything even remotely negative about their team/player/manager/league.

People who just can't deal with criticism on any level, who think that people with opposing opinions are just out to wind them up.

These are the scourge of the forum, imo. They are worse than trolls.

Handsome Bob

Des wrote: »

So, you know about the "Ignore This Poster" feature?

Yeah I know, but these guys almost inevitably get the spotlight on them in these threads. So it's hard to follow what is being discussed without viewing the troll's posts.

I'm not a Soccer Mod.

If you PM the Mods and you feel it is "futile", then go to HelpDesk.

I'm only one man Des, I don't believe things will be changed just because I go crying about it.

What's wrong with Americans posting about Soccer?

I was being lighthearted there.:) Americans actually get a rough ride when it comes to soccer. A lot of them don't understand the "pettyness" (their own word) of fierce rivalries so good discussions can be had with them as they don't have the "blinkers" on so to speak.

Draupnir

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because we all know that there are many posters around here who have, quite frankly, perfected the art of ****-stirring to the point where they can be absolutely infuriating without actually breaking the rules of the charter.

Thus, why do I not PM mods? Because it is futile; as I said these guys aren't breaking the rules "officially" so your (the mod's) hands are tied. There's nothing the mods can do about it.

For the record, since that Spurs/Liverpool thread, I've rarely given trolls the satisfaction. But now the problem for me is that I couldn't be bothered posting at all in this forum. I get more engaging discussions on soccer from posters on American boards for **** sake.:p:pac:

All fair enough points within the current system, however I would argue that if the system reverts to one that relies on moderator discretion, then you as the user would be obligated to PM the mod and report this kind of behaviour so that the mod could then at least to begin to form an opinion on the trolling user.

If that system comes in then responsibility begins to fall on all the users to provide as much information so that the mods can form balanced views of each user and make better, more informed decisions.

Rising to the bait would certainly not help and as Des says, would almost make the user who rises come out the worst of the whole thing.

Handsome Bob

Draupnir wrote: »

All fair enough points within the current system, however I would argue that if the system reverts to one that relies on moderator discretion, then you as the user would be obligated to PM the mod and report this kind of behaviour so that the mod could then at least to begin to form an opinion on the trolling user.

If that system comes in then responsibility begins to fall on all the users to provide as much information so that the mods can form balanced views of each user and make better, more informed decisions.

Rising to the bait would certainly not help and as Des says, would almost make the user who rises come out the worst of the whole thing.

Yup I agree with you, if moderator discretion came back in where they could judge for themselves if there was "intent" to breach the peace, then I'd be a much happier poster.

_blank_

mike65 wrote: »

I would ask the mods to relax the issue of whats considered personal abuse of a player/manager/owner/ref/agent/pundit. Sometimes they really ask for both barrels and it would be nice to give it to them every once in a while.

This will not work, imo.

Because, even when certain "personalities" do "ask for it with both barrels" if we posted what we really think of them, this place would go into meltdown.

For example.

Every Manchester United fan really did feel that Rafa was a ********* ********* (stars not actually words) that day he did his list.

If every United had have posted "STFU You ******* ********", well then, we would have had all out war, and a nightmare to moderate properly.

5starpool

Des wrote: »

...in fact, I'd go so far to say that anyone who reacts in a negative fashion to an obvious troll/WUM should be more severely sanctioned than the troll themselves.

This is just so wrong.

You think that someone who deliberately tries to start arguments and deleiberately tries to rise people into getting banned is better for the forum than someone who does not do any of the above, posts nothing out of line, but calls the obvious trolls a twat now and then in the heat of the moment?

yahoo_moe

Draupnir wrote: »

If that system comes in then responsibility begins to fall on all the users to provide as much information so that the mods can form balanced views of each user and make better, more informed decisions.

Yes but realistically, the mods can only have informed views of very established users - I reckon around 50 posters, say. And even then, those views might not be balanced (although this is where trusting moderators comes in, i guess, so we can probably leave this part of the argument aside).

How can a moderator be expected to have an informed knowledge of every one of the hundreds (does anyone know the exact number?) of posters in the forum?

Pro. F

GuanYin wrote: »

I think it depends who is doing it though.

I wonder is the old system of "intent" a better apporach. If the mod deems that someone is intending to insult/annoy/abuse/rile then they take action, rather than having a stricter set of rules.

The issue is, you guys need to trust us to make the call.

I think it is the case that some posters can cause serious harm on this forum with continuous trolling of rival fans' threads. These trolls abuse the understanding that banter is a part of football discussion. I don't have much of a problem with the ''ha team x lost today, your manager is a fool'' type of posts or the holding of an absurdly contrarian view, when they happen once in a while. But when the same poster rolls out the same drival on a continuously repetetive basis it just becomes a pain in the @rse and sets up a bad atmosphere imo which leads to counter trolling.

I would like to see those trolls dealt with but it's a big ask to sign off on giving over trust to the mods to interperate the rules of the forum and the intentions of supposed trolls. Would there be a scheduled review so it could be changed back (to strict rule based decisions) if people weren't happy with how the new (interpretative) moderation turned out?

Dub13

As a soccer mod I would like a rule were we can ban a user from a thread for a few hours,I think this would be a good idea if a normally fine user goes of on one after his team suffer a bad defeat.I think it could be a nice middle ground between a ban and a warning/yellow card.

Its not technically possible to ban someone from a thread so this would require some thought such as what would happen if they just don't take any notice of the thread ban,but I am sure something could be worked out if we went with this idea.

5starpool

Pro. F wrote: »

I would like to see those trolls dealt with but it's a big ask to sign off on giving over trust to the mods to interperate the rules of the forum and the intentions of supposed trolls. Would there be a scheduled review so it could be changed back (to strict rule based decisions) if people weren't happy with how the new (interpretative) moderation turned out?

This is what happens all over the site. I would be much happier personally with a softer, sense based approach with the smack being laid down when necessary.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

...in fact, I'd go so far to say that anyone who reacts in a negative fashion to an obvious troll/WUM should be more severely sanctioned than the troll themselves.

Strongly disagree. Would fight the implementation of such a policy tooth and nail.

LuckyLloyd

Draupnir wrote: »

If the group of mods could be trusted to carry out a system like this rather than have really hard and fast rules then yes this is the better system.

I can't see how a rules system can ever be put together that could successfully control the traffic in the soccer forum without opening the door for "well you banned XXX for it, so you have to ban YYYY" or "ZZZZ didn't get infracted for this similar behaviour thing, so why am I?" type scenarios.

A system which is based on the mods feelings for the tone of the comments, coupled with good internal discussion of contentious issues amongst mods and most importantly, users behaving like adults, should be capable of working a lot better than some set of predefined rules that paints every one of us into a corner at some stage.

I also appreciate that I could be suggesting a system that would see me banned very quickly for some of my postings over the last few years.

Cheers. Saved me having to type.

_blank_

Is it possible that before this thread is unstickied/locked that a mod could leave a post with the points they intend discussing which have been raised in this thread?

kida

Dub13 wrote: »

As a soccer mod I would like a rule were we can ban a user from a thread for a few hours,I think this would be a good idea if a normally fine user goes of on one after his team suffer a bad defeat.I think it could be a nice middle ground between a ban and a warning/yellow card.

Its not technically possible to ban someone from a thread so this would require some thought such as what would happen if they just don't take any notice of the thread ban,but I am sure something could be worked out if we went with this idea.

not actually that hard, they are warned if they post within X hours(in thread or forum) then its a week ban.

therecklessone

Des wrote: »

Is it possible that before this thread is unstickied/locked that a mod could leave a post with the points they intend discussing which have been raised in this thread?

Everything will be discussed.

PHB

Can I ask what the current problems are?

If we could identify them, the solutions to them would be much easier to work out.

missingtime

PHB wrote: »

Can I ask what the current problems are?

If we could identify them, the solutions to them would be much easier to work out.

The superthreads mostly. They are just not feasible.

Necronomicon

missingtime wrote: »

The superthreads mostly. They are just not feasible.

In what way? Without them there'd be a million more threads a day and things would be too cluttered. They also foster a community feel between fans that post in them. There was an arguement before that they were 'territorial' but I don't think you see it so much now.

5starpool

You can't not have superthreads. The increased traffic since they came in would mean it would be impossible to have a thread stay on the front page without them, difficult enough as it is now.

Mr Alan

i think the superthreads have to stay to be honest.

wats the solution?

Daemos

I suggested eariler that instead of a superthread, each of the main teams should have their own sub-forum. That way, individual team issues could be discussed in more detail in it's own thread instead of lost among the mass of comments in superthreads.

Mr Alan

personally i think that would take away far too much traffic from the main forum & i really doubt that opinions of non-fans of that club wouldn't be as welcome in a club forum as they are here (which isn't a lot)

PHB

Sub-Forums would no doubt increase any sort of tribalism. Superthreads aren't anywhere near as busy as they used to be, like you're talking what, 30-40 posts every 4-5 hours. Which isn't too bad.

Personally I think the structures of the forum in place currently are fine (although I would say that), I just think that many people get away with a little too much in terms of trolling.

This is in two forms.

A. People who post things which are just utterly imflamitory.

B. People who respond to any posts which are negatives with accussations of trolling etc.

I think the solution is just a stricter enforcing of these rules. Stop messing around with warnings, and just infract instantly, no warnings. People will soon learn. Especially when warnings tend to be to a thread in general, rather than to a specific person. Maybe if you want to tow a middle line, you could just warn people in the thread individually, so that they can know they are at fault.
General warnings can result in everyone thinking you're talking about the other person.

Oh, a zero tolerance for anyone, whatsoever, calling/implying someone is a troll. It adds absolutely ****ing nothing to a thread, nothing at all. It is just stupid, and utterly hypocritical. Report the post, and let that be that.
People will only stop doing that if you infract them every time they do it, no other way to make it happen.

OPENROAD

PHB wrote: »

I think the solution is just a stricter enforcing of these rules. Stop messing around with warnings, and just infract instantly, no warnings. People will soon learn. Especially when warnings tend to be to a thread in general, rather than to a specific person. Maybe if you want to tow a middle line, you could just warn people in the thread individually, so that they can know they are at fault.
General warnings can result in everyone thinking you're talking about the other person.

Oh, a zero tolerance for anyone, whatsoever, calling/implying someone is a troll. It adds absolutely ****ing nothing to a thread, nothing at all. It is just stupid, and utterly hypocritical. Report the post, and let that be that.
People will only stop doing that if you infract them every time they do it, no other way to make it happen.

If you have a zero tolerance policy you have to clearly define what trolling is, no harm as you say specific posters in a thread being publically given a warning. One thing I would hate to see though is banter been cut out in match threads especially, yes things can get heated from time to time but for me a lot of it is banter between groups of supporters as long as you don't have personal insults or you have a case of bullying between posters then I really hope we don't see stricter rules.

missingtime

Sorry I probably should have given a solution...

The superthreads are ok but its instances where people pose a question in a superthread that might have been asked and discussed 4 pages beforehand. Its unfair for new people just entering the thread or indeed soccer forum.

For example; the liverpool thread on of the frequently asked questions would be peoples opinion on whether babel should be sold.

And there have been a number of responses in the form of "not this again :rolleyes:"

Its particularly annoying.

I dont know if simliar issues happenen in other superthreads. For instance, if I asked in the Arsenal superthread about will wenger survive the next season...I imagine its been done to death but I might be genuinely interested in a discussion about it. Would there be kinda "sigh...here we go again attitude".

Of course these questions could be posted as individual thread but then you'd have the "surely this didn't deserve a thread of its own" brigade on your back...but you can't please everyone I suppose.

Sub forums would help out a small bit but then the actual soccer forum would probably die out....

If I could ask for one thing its to ban the rolleyes and less of the ****ty comments listed above

I actually dont care about trolls its the chip on their shoulder posters that get my oar.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

Oh, a zero tolerance for anyone, whatsoever, calling/implying someone is a troll. It adds absolutely ****ing nothing to a thread, nothing at all. It is just stupid, and utterly hypocritical. Report the post, and let that be that.
People will only stop doing that if you infract them every time they do it, no other way to make it happen.

I've been doing this in Rugby recently.

Any form of back seat modding, including shouting "troll" has a zero tolerance attitude.

It's cut down a lot.

And there are about triple, or more, the amount of reported posts.

Dub13

Just to keep you guys in the loop,we are breaking down this thread on the mods forum and at the moment we are discussing this thread and the points made up ontill post 60.So you can be assured we will talk about every point made.So if it seems like there is no progress thats not the case its a big task to mull over everything and get all the mods views on each point.

We are not like TDs,we work in the off season.

PHB

If you have a zero tolerance policy you have to clearly define what trolling is, no harm as you say specific posters in a thread being publically given a warning. One thing I would hate to see though is banter been cut out in match threads especially, yes things can get heated from time to time but for me a lot of it is banter between groups of supporters as long as you don't have personal insults or you have a case of bullying between posters then I really hope we don't see stricter rules.

I think you can't have good banter without a proper enforcement of B.

I love the banter between fans, its why most of us love football, but we all know if there was any banterish post in a Liverpool match thread, somebody would no doubt call it a troll. At which point, the conversation just denegrates until everyone is pissed off, and the cycle continues.

For any banter to ever work, that has to be fixed.

Bounty Hunter

Dub13 wrote: »

Just to keep you guys in the loop,we are breaking down this thread on the mods forum and at the moment we are discussing this thread and the points made up ontill post 60.So you can be assured we will talk about every point made.So if it seems like there is no progress thats not the case its a big task to mull over everything and get all the mods views on each point.

We are not like TDs,we work in the off season.

guessing my Suggestion for a Soccer betting tips/odds superthread is about to get the go ahead then :cool:

Dub13

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

guessing my Suggestion for a Soccer betting tips/odds superthread is about to get the go ahead then :cool:

I am not going to preempt what the other soccer mods think but I will say that idea got my support.

therecklessone

missingtime wrote: »

Sorry I probably should have given a solution...

The superthreads are ok but its instances where people pose a question in a superthread that might have been asked and discussed 4 pages beforehand. Its unfair for new people just entering the thread or indeed soccer forum.

For example; the liverpool thread on of the frequently asked questions would be peoples opinion on whether babel should be sold.

And there have been a number of responses in the form of "not this again :rolleyes:"

Its particularly annoying.

Thanks for posting that, I wasn't aware that this was a recurring problem, and I agree that it is not something we should allow to continue.

I've bolded a sentence above that sums up one of the problems that I have with the forum. It has manifested itself here: there is an increasing tendency for existing users to look down their noses at new entrants, or to see their behaviour as the problem, not our own. I said it much earlier, we were all n00bs at one stage, and we all had to learn how this forum worked. it is in our own interest to see the forum operate smoothly, and if "enduring" a little irritation helps that, then we should take the hit in the interests of the forum. It certainly doesn't help to see established users imply that new arrivals are only posting because school's out for summer, or words to that effect.

I think a lot of the problems this forum experiences could be resolved if the culture changed a little. The attitude above is one example, another is the incessant whining by some people that a thread is pointless, or that it belongs elsewhere. If you think a thread or post needs to be moved, then report it and move on. I hate to say this, but please leave the moderation to the mods. The same applies to perceived trolling, it is not up to the users of this forum to deal with trolling, report it and move on. I especially hate to see comments on-thread such as "post reported"...it serves no useful purpose, and is only likely to add fuel to an ongoing fire. Likewise with comments such as "I've added you to my ignore list". It is childish, and achieves nothing.

And I have no problem hammering down on back-seat modding if that's what is required.

While I'm on the subject of reported posts, can we please move away from the tendency to report posts by opposition fans, but ignore the exact same offence by fellow fans? It happens guys, and it is really obvious when it does. We should all see the charter as a set of guidelines to help this community interact in a positive manner, to that end we should see any activity that threatens that as a problem regardless of who the offender supports. A recent case of abuse was dealt with by a fellow mod but not before a comment on-thread from another poster that "didn't need to see a fan of team X banned, so maybe people should edit their post". No amount of work on our part will change that, that is entirely up to you.

therecklessone

OPENROAD wrote: »

If you have a zero tolerance policy you have to clearly define what trolling is, no harm as you say specific posters in a thread being publically given a warning.

I've considered providing a FAQ link in the charter that would explain some of the rules in greater detail (such as back-seat modding, the spoiler rules, and trolling) One thing we are going to come up against though is the fact that a lot of people simply will not read the charter or any expanded version of it until they have been infracted or banned, and then it's only to argue against the action we have taken.

If people are serious about wanting to see positive change then they need to make themselves aware of the guidelines provided.

Headshot

maybe one way to help the n00bs if they know some of the options like
40 posts per page

Bounty Hunter

dont want to single out new posters as that is unfair but if there is a way to ensure new posters know more about the forum rules then that can only help in the long runs so how about instead of just telling them to read the charter when they apply to post on the soccer board, they are asked a set few questions that they can only answer by checking the charter therefore ensuring they actually read the thing.

therecklessone

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

dont want to single out new posters as that is unfair but if there is a way to ensure new posters know more about the forum rules then that can only help in the long runs so how about instead of just telling them to read the charter when they apply to post on the soccer board, they are asked a set few questions that they can only answer by checking the charter therefore ensuring they actually read the thing.

How familiar are you with the access request mechanism?

Once a user has read the soccer charter they can post a request in this forum stating that they have read and will comply to the rules of the soccer forum and would like to join the forum. - two identifier words - (in italics in the soccer charter) must be included in your application. THE FULL TEXT YOU NEED IS POSTED BELOW. Just fill in the blanks and post.

The purpose of the identifier words is to get people to read the charter. Adding in a question session to allow access is only just an extra layer on top of that, and if they are inclined to skim the charter at the moment for the italicised words then they would be inclined to skim the charter for the answer to a set of questions.

Bounty Hunter

therecklessone wrote: »

How familiar are you with the access request mechanism?



The purpose of the identifier words is to get people to read the charter. Adding in a question session to allow access is only just an extra layer on top of that, and if they are inclined to skim the charter at the moment for the italicised words then they would be inclined to skim the charter for the answer to a set of questions.

well that is true but i would imagine that a large proportion of people (not that i did of course) would just scan the thing looking for italics and not actually reading. whilst for the questions they would actually have to read through it to find the answer as it would not be in italics. People are lazy buggers

just a thought

therecklessone

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

well that is true but i would imagine that a large proportion of people (not that i did of course) would just scan the thing looking for italics and not actually reading. whilst for the questions they would actually have to read through it to find the answer as it would not be in italics. People are lazy buggers

just a thought

I'll be honest with you, that would add to our workload and unless I see a real benefit then I'm reluctant to do that. People are lazy buggers after all...;)

We process about 15 access requests every week, I'm still not convinced that there's a big enough problem with new users to justify a change in how we process the access request. Most of what I have had to deal with has been minor breaches of the charter, mainly by people who didn't realise we consider certain comments to be abusive rather than a bit of banter. Perhaps an expanded explanation off the rule on abuse will help, if we spell out that terms like Manure or redsh1te are considered as a abusive.

villains77

i think other fans of epl teams should stay on there own forum and not slag off other teams forums/players etc keep to their own forums and stop looking for trouble

Mr Alan

villains77 wrote: »

i think other fans of epl teams should stay on there own forum and not slag off other teams forums/players etc keep to their own forums and stop looking for trouble

I think that attitude is among the biggest problems with this forum.

Its for general football fans to discuss all things football, whatever they wish....if you want a forum for Liverpool,Villa,Utd fans only, i don't think this is the place for you.